[ad_1]
The government will not release an internal report that may reveal its own responsibility for the NAV scandal. It is reckless and unreliable.
This is a comment. Express the views of the writer.
One of the big unanswered questions after the revelation of the NAV scandal in 2019 is how in the world it could happen.
How was it possible that both the government, the Storting, the courts (and the press) were so wrong about the EEA rules that Norway had committed to?
In hindsight, we know the result:
Up to 80 people were wrongly convicted, many of them imprisoned, for social security fraud. At least 2,400 social security beneficiaries received illegal claims for reimbursement. What this has cost in human tragedy, we can only imagine.
Then it has emerged that Some of them knew that what they were doing was contrary to Norwegian legal understanding. Therefore, it is good to say that these with knowledge and will wanted violate Norwegian law, even though the courts’ interpretation of Norwegian law subsequently turned out to be incorrect.
But this does not explain the social security scandal. And he is not apologetic at all that the government is now backing down on previous promises.
For example, then-Minister for Labor and Social Affairs Anniken Hauglie (H) at the Storting said shortly after the scandal broke that “Everything must come to light.” All stones must be turned ».
A hearing on the matter is held at the Storting on Friday and an internal report entitled “Export of social benefits” from 2014 is once again relevant. Six years ago, a working group was created with people from various ministries, which was to analyze more closely how it was possible to limit exports of so-called social security abroad.
Also read: Many of the victims of the social security scandal even thought they were doing something criminal
The conclusion of the working group was that the actual residence requirement in Norway no It could be applied in the EEA area. In other words: people were actually allowed bring social security to another EEA country, contrary to what NAV claims.
The content of the report and how it was dealt with in the ministry can, of course, be decisive in discovering why the report was not taken into account and why knowledge was not passed on to the prosecution and the courts.
Professor Christer C. Eriksen from the UiO Public Law Department tells Aftenposten that it is “very sensational and contrary to past practice” that Acting Minister of Labor and Social Affairs Henrik Asheim is refusing to publish the report.
It is true that it is quite common for municipalities and government agencies to try to slip away from the openness principle by calling it “internal documents.”
But this time it’s very reckless and very unreliable:
First, it raises suspicions that the report contains something that does not stand up to daylight. That there is something there that may be revealing for the current government. Why else should Asheim refuse to give her up?
Second, the government may very well have to resign anyway, as Leader Jon Wessel-Aas of the Norwegian Bar Association suggests on Twitter:
And third, this time it is not enough to say that it is not “common” to issue internal reports.
Because the NAV scandal is not an “ordinary” case. In a post in Dagsavisen, Professors Eriksen and Kildahl show that previous governments have disclosed internal documents in several serious cases, including the Kings Bay accident (1963), the Reksten case (1988), and the banking crisis (1998).
But openness is also important in the big picture:
The issue of the EU and EEA is a recurring issue in Norwegian politics. Regardless of how we look at our relationship with Europe, it is a fact that to a large extent we have to comply with the directives that emerge from there, while having little or no impact on them.
Read more comments from Erik Stephansen
Therefore, some will report to Norway Hostal in the EU to be able to influence directives. While others will report on Norway outside – to avoid having to deal with them at all.
In any case, full transparency is a prerequisite for democratic processes. All parties benefit from Norwegian citizens knowing how current EEA rules affect us and how they are received and dealt with in the Norwegian administration.
Everything else gives the impression that the government has something to hide.
Advertising
Black Week: the best deals you make in the Fjellsport sales
[ad_2]
